﻿and 
  types 
  of 
  certain 
  genera 
  of 
  Hymenoptera. 
  61 
  

  

  III. 
  23. 
  PHILANTHUS 
  Fabricius, 
  1790 
  = 
  [Simblephilus 
  

   Jurine, 
  1801]. 
  

  

  Type 
  : 
  [Crabro 
  androgynus 
  Rossi] 
  = 
  {Vespa'] 
  triangulum 
  

   Fabr. 
  = 
  Philanthus 
  triangulum 
  Fabr. 
  By 
  designation 
  of 
  

   Curtis 
  1829. 
  

  

  Morice 
  and 
  Durrant, 
  p. 
  410, 
  state 
  that 
  " 
  Jurine's 
  revision 
  

   of 
  Philanthus 
  (30. 
  v. 
  1801), 
  being 
  a 
  year 
  prior 
  to 
  that 
  of 
  

   Latreille 
  (after 
  iv. 
  1802), 
  his 
  restriction 
  of 
  its 
  possible 
  

   types 
  to 
  laetus, 
  arenarius, 
  and 
  labiatus, 
  must 
  be 
  accepted. 
  

   This 
  means 
  that 
  arenaria 
  L. 
  is 
  the 
  type, 
  for 
  laetus 
  is 
  a 
  

   synonym 
  of 
  arenarius, 
  and 
  labiatus 
  was 
  not 
  originally 
  

   included 
  in 
  the 
  Fabrician 
  Philanthus.''^ 
  

  

  The 
  citation 
  of 
  only 
  3 
  supposed 
  species 
  in 
  connection 
  

   with 
  Philanthus 
  by 
  Jurine 
  in 
  1801 
  does 
  not 
  restrict 
  selection 
  

   of 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  that 
  genus 
  to 
  any 
  one 
  of 
  them. 
  That 
  was 
  

   in 
  a 
  measure 
  the 
  now 
  discarded 
  principle 
  of 
  type-fixation 
  

   by 
  elimination.* 
  There 
  being 
  no 
  basis 
  for 
  the 
  fixation 
  of 
  

   a 
  type 
  of 
  Philanthus 
  in 
  the 
  original 
  pubhcation 
  of 
  Fab- 
  

   ricius 
  (1790) 
  t 
  the 
  first 
  subsequent 
  actual 
  designation 
  of 
  

   the 
  type 
  by 
  any 
  author, 
  if 
  in 
  accordance 
  with 
  paragraph 
  e 
  

   of 
  Art. 
  30 
  of 
  the 
  code, 
  must 
  be 
  accepted. 
  i 
  Latreille 
  

   (1810 
  : 
  438) 
  cannot 
  be 
  considered 
  to 
  have 
  designated 
  a 
  

   type, 
  since 
  he 
  mentions 
  two 
  difierent 
  species 
  both 
  as 
  

   type.§ 
  The 
  first 
  actual 
  designation 
  of 
  a 
  type 
  seems 
  to 
  

  

  * 
  See 
  Opinion 
  6 
  of 
  the 
  International 
  Commission 
  on 
  Zoological 
  

   Nomenclature. 
  This 
  Opinion 
  provides 
  that 
  when 
  a 
  later 
  author 
  

   divides 
  the 
  genus 
  A, 
  species 
  A 
  b 
  and 
  A 
  c, 
  leaving 
  genus 
  A, 
  only 
  

   species 
  A 
  b, 
  and 
  genus 
  C, 
  monotypic 
  with 
  species 
  C 
  c, 
  the 
  second 
  

   author 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  construed 
  as 
  having 
  fixed 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  the 
  genus 
  A. 
  

   Prom 
  the 
  discussion 
  of 
  the 
  case 
  it 
  is 
  perfectly 
  clear 
  that 
  this 
  prin- 
  

   ciple 
  cannot 
  be 
  carried 
  further, 
  to 
  the 
  extent 
  of 
  including 
  cases 
  in 
  

   wliich 
  more 
  than 
  two 
  species 
  were 
  included 
  in 
  the 
  original 
  descrip- 
  

   tion 
  of 
  the 
  earher 
  genus. 
  

  

  See 
  further, 
  Opinion 
  58, 
  in 
  the 
  discussion 
  of 
  which 
  is 
  stated, 
  

   concerning 
  a 
  somewhat 
  similar 
  case 
  : 
  " 
  ' 
  Esox 
  Cuvier 
  ' 
  is 
  a 
  restricted 
  

   group 
  of 
  ' 
  Esox 
  Linn.' 
  Only 
  one 
  species 
  is 
  mentioned, 
  and 
  this 
  

   becomes 
  the 
  type 
  (by 
  monotypy) 
  of 
  ' 
  Esox 
  Cuvier.' 
  This 
  rigidly 
  

   construed 
  is 
  not, 
  however, 
  a 
  designation 
  of 
  the 
  genotype 
  for 
  ' 
  Esox 
  

   Limi.' 
  " 
  

  

  t 
  See 
  International 
  Code, 
  Art 
  30, 
  i. 
  

  

  X 
  Art. 
  30, 
  g: 
  "If 
  an 
  author, 
  in 
  pubhshing 
  a 
  genus 
  with 
  more 
  

   than 
  one 
  vaUd 
  species 
  fails 
  to 
  designate 
  or 
  to 
  indicate 
  its 
  type, 
  

   any 
  subsequent 
  author 
  may 
  select 
  the 
  type, 
  and 
  such 
  designation 
  

   is 
  not 
  subject 
  to 
  change." 
  

  

  § 
  If 
  it 
  should 
  be 
  interpreted 
  that 
  the 
  first 
  of 
  these 
  was 
  the 
  actual 
  

   designation 
  of 
  a 
  type, 
  and 
  the 
  other 
  intended 
  as 
  a 
  synonym 
  (which 
  

   it 
  is 
  not), 
  or 
  as 
  a 
  supplementary 
  illustration, 
  the 
  result 
  would 
  be 
  

  

  